Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Check out this Puckle gun:
Spoiler:
MYTH: If you need defense, call 9-1-1, the police will protect you.
FACT: The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that the police have no legal obligation to protect your life. Castle Rock vs Gonzales.
MYTH: Simply anyone shouldn’t be able to own a gun, like the mentally ill for instance.
FACT: Not everyone can own a gun.
Q: Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?
Yes, a person who —
1)Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
2)Is a fugitive from justice;
3)Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4)Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
5)Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
6)Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7)Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
8)Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
9)Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10)Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.
Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]
MYTH: There exists a gun show loophole and people aren’t required to get background checks.
FACT: There does not exist a gun show loophole and individuals are required to get background checks
Many gun shows require that sellers be FFL and the majority are storefront. They must track inventory or they lose their license. If private seller transfer firearms to a prohibited possessor (ya know, the kinds that would show up on background check)... the seller broke federal laws.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
Whose argument, mine or Whembly's? If you mean mine, then you clearly don't even know what mine is. This isn't the first time Whembly has trotted out that law without bothering to actually read the damn thing. Whembly is under the mistaken belief that B.2 somehow overrides the requirements laid forth in A. It does not. B.1 and B.2 merely subdivide those who meet the requirements set forth in A. I am not arguing for/against gun rights, blah, blah, blah, I am only arguing against Whembly's mistaken interpretation of the law he likes to quote and underline. That's it.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
If the word militia in the Constitution is defined by the definition of militia in Title 10, then there is no reason not to require the same physical standards for gun owners that we require for the rest of the military. And no guns for women.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
Whose argument, mine or Whembly's? If you mean mine, then you clearly don't even know what mine is. This isn't the first time Whembly has trotted out that law without bothering to actually read the damn thing. Whembly is under the mistaken belief that B.2 somehow overrides the requirements laid forth in A. It does not. B.1 and B.2 merely subdivide those who meet the requirements set forth in A. I am not arguing for/against gun rights, blah, blah, blah, I am only arguing against Whembly's mistaken interpretation of the law he likes to quote and underline. That's it.
(B)(1) and (B)(2) is used to define the term 'militia' in (A)(1).
There's no "overriding" here... I think you're misreading this.... Here... lemme break it down:
a) The militia
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
When you read that legal statute, it's either referring to (B)(1) OR (B)(2).
That's the modern interpretation and context.
Historically, as during the time period when the US Constitution was ratified, the "militias" were just another name for armed citizens.
I find it interesting that, while the Second Amendment is a single sentence, the most ... ardent supporters of it view it as two separate sentences.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is no period between the words 'State' and 'the'. Yet people read it as if there was.
Also, people tend to ignore the other mentions of 'Militia' in the Constitution.
Article I Section 8 Clause 14-16 wrote:14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
d-usa wrote: If you are not an able bodied male within the age range, you are neither B1 nor B2.
Right. Not sure why you keep harping that... o.O
I think he is insinuating that the 2A only protects your right to keep and bear arms during the time you are qualified to be in the militia. There isn’t much to support that interpretation though. Gun ownership isn’t limited to militia members it’s protected for everyone because it’s an integral part of makin a militia possible.
d-usa wrote: If you are not an able bodied male within the age range, you are neither B1 nor B2.
Right. Not sure why you keep harping that... o.O
I think he is insinuating that the 2A only protects your right to keep and bear arms during the time you are qualified to be in the militia. There isn’t much to support that interpretation though. Gun ownership isn’t limited to militia members it’s protected for everyone because it’s an integral part of makin a militia possible.
No, I am not.
I am replying to an argument that militia means “everyone that isn’t part of the armed forces” because of (b)(2).
And IF you want to argue that militia means everyone because of (b), THEN you would have to also follow (a) and accept the limitations that come with it. You can’t just pull out half of a definition of militia from Title 10 to use it to define the 2A, while ignoring the rest of the definition.
So it’s better not to use Title 10 at all to define the word “militia” as used in the 2nd, that’s all.
I think if you're being really honest, you have to admit that the idea of gun ownership as a fundamental right, unconnected to militia membership or not, was a gray area for virtually all of US history. The founding fathers made no provision for a permanent standing army, so the idea there would be regular militias, and so armed, makes sense in that context.
Then we have a few years ago, where the SCOTUS essentially invented a right to own guns for the purposes of personal self-defense. And the truth is, I'm not that butthurt about it. I think applying the intent to modern times is OK. I'm not a strict textualist. Much like how a prior court invented a right to privacy, which is the underpinning of legal abortion, I think it's reasonable to extrapolate out modern interpretations... which of course has been happening for the history of the country, as well.
Otherwise you guys should be petitioning hard for the US Army, at a minimum, to be disbanded. Isn't that a crazy, stupid idea? Of course it is. That's not the world we live in anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/02 03:21:39
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think it was a "grey area" recently in these last few generations though...
All the time, my parents/grandparents remembers a time when guns was considered nothing more than a tool. Yes, my g'pa had a rifle rack in his truck cabin and carried his pistol in places like his church or his watering hole. No one batted an eye...
They argued that this *shift* occured in early 80's as the news became more and more sensationalized... and that not enough respect over firearms is taught in households these days.
Generations of American law students, lawyers, judges, and statesmen learned their understanding of the Constitution - through Tucker.
The salient point, he states:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most government it has been the study of rules to confirm this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Even at this nation's founding, it is unambiguously prominent that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right as opposed to only the government should have such arms.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Ouze wrote: Then we have a few years ago, where the SCOTUS essentially invented a right to own guns for the purposes of personal self-defense..
They didn't invent it. They at simply stated it explicitly, clarifying the intent of the 2nd Amendment for the more dense members of society.
At the time, nobody would have dreamed that anybody in the future would question the right for someone to posses weapons for self-defense, or question someone having the same kind of weapons as a "military". It would be as anathematic to them as us today imagining a future where laws are passed regulating how much oxygen a person is allowed to breath.
Another interesting thing to remember is that the 2nd amendment is written in such a way that it can be argued that it was actually the ONLY right that was intended to be unlimited. This is because it is the only right to contain the words "shall not be infringed.", which to me is a pretty clear "YOU MAY NOT CREATE ANY LAWS LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF THIS RIGHT!" sign. None of the other rights have wording that so strongly prohibits legislation limiting that right.
The founding fathers made no provision for a permanent standing army, so the idea there would be regular militias, and so armed, makes sense in that context.
Aye. And one of the reasons for that was because the Founding Fathers knew that a federal government couldn't be fully trusted. The armed populace were to be a foil for potential tyranny arising from a standing army. Forcing that army to have to continually renew its funding was simply one of many safe guards. If anything, they would think the standing army of today would necessitate an even more heavily armed populace than there currently is.
Otherwise you guys should be petitioning hard for the US Army, at a minimum, to be disbanded. Isn't that a crazy, stupid idea? Of course it is. That's not the world we live in anymore.
Not really. Nothing in the text says there can't be a standing army. Only that the funding needs to be reapproved every two years. And hey, in the event the army didn't get funding nothing prevented the army from still existing, they just wouldn't be getting any money from congress. Thats why the US armed forces aren't considered Unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say "A Federal Army may only exist for two years and must then be disbanded before a new one can be formed".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/02 05:46:30
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Oh man, because I can't get enough whataboutisms and jacking off about defeating tyranny while breathlessly supporting a guy ho wants to declare himself president for life
And now it's all in one handy thread.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Well if you go strictly by the wording then anybody that's old or disabled can't have guns, women and blacks were also without rights at the time. Plenty of old men and crippled revolutionary war veterans were around right after it was written yet there was no call to take firearms away from citizens so there's an intent beyond the wording itself and the Supreme Court was chiefly designed to provide interpretation of intent of law vs letter of law as they knew that laws would need to be clarified as new challenges and situations arose that the original laws didn't address.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/02 07:16:10
I do enjoy these threads because a) I find the history of the second amendment to be fascinating and b) I get to wheel out historical facts
From the historical perspective, it's no surprise that there are problems with the 2nd, because it was based on the English Bill of Rights, which give firearms rights to citizens (or subjects in this case) but only if they were white, male, and Protestant.
The focus on a militia is no surprise either because they would know their history i.e. Cromwell turning Britain into a military dictatorship, and of course, you've just sent one army back to Britain after the Revolution.
But as wise as they were, the founding fathers couldn't predict the Maryland militia running off in the war of 1812, or the Civil War, or the 14th amendment and so on...
And let this neutral observer tell American dakka members that you'd be surprised how many anti-gun laws were prevalent throughout 19th century America in frontier towns and so on...
The tide ebbs and flows, because American society changes.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I do enjoy these threads because a) I find the history of the second amendment to be fascinating and b) I get to wheel out historical facts
And let this neutral observer tell American dakka members that you'd be surprised how many anti-gun laws were prevalent throughout 19th century America in frontier towns and so on...
You mean like
"A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”
or
"A Photograph of Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you’d imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you’d never expect. There’s a huge wooden billboard announcing, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
To be perfectly frank, the debate back and forth about exactly what is and isn't included in a militia is pure bunk. It just doesn't matter at all.
It's a terribly written sentence, intended for a wildly different time. The founding fathers lived in a society that had many gun controls, loyalists to the king were often barred from having weapons, many towns banned guns, in other places firearm ownership was conditional on taking part in mandatory musters for other firearm owners. It was a time when a militia wasn't just for military use, it was a key element of policing and community protection. Read in this context, well its still a terrible sentence, but it least now its word salad can be given some kind of meaning as a power given to the states to administer their own militias - it was the militia that was essential, the firearms were part of that militia.
Of course, nobody thinks about that terrible sentence in that context anymore, because the US is a radically different place to what it once was. Which is fine, but the problem comes when people start picking apart each word in that horrible sentence to contort in to somehow fitting with how they personally want gun laws to be now. That's an awful, ridiculous exercise, it is just layering a whole load of pedantry, bad law and bad history on top of an already complex issue. And it's ultimately a total waste of time, because if people want private guns to be banned that's what people will believe that sentence says, if people want expanded private gun rights, they'll believe that's what the sentence says.
The only gun debate worth a damn is over what gun laws have greater safety benefits than they have losses in freedoms, and what gun laws infringe freedoms too greatly for their safety benefits. When that is debated and some conclusions reached, then people will just decide that's what the 2nd actually says. But that debate on decent gun laws doesn't happen, and instead we get the junk argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/03 09:07:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I'm in total agreement with you Seb, which is rare.
What does a well regulated militia actually mean? It's so open ended and has many intepretations.
In my fictional militia, I would want people to run a mile in under 15 minutes as a fitness condition to membership.
I would want people to hit the target 10 times at 100 yards in say, 3 minutes or something.
Somebody else might come along and say we'll do that mile run in 12 minutes and we'll do that target shooting in 2 minutes
etc etc etc
So already, there is compromise and debate about militia regulations.
But as somebody once said, our questions would make no sense to the Founders, just as their answers woud make no sense to us...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But as somebody once said, our questions would make no sense to the Founders, just as their answers woud make no sense to us...
Exactly. Just imagine trying to explain a nuclear bomb to the Founding Fathers without using biblical references to describe its power. Or explaining to them that some of our major metro areas have as many people today as the entire US had in 1780.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
But as somebody once said, our questions would make no sense to the Founders, just as their answers woud make no sense to us...
Exactly. Just imagine trying to explain a nuclear bomb to the Founding Fathers without using biblical references to describe its power. Or explaining to them that some of our major metro areas have as many people today as the entire US had in 1780.
Meh, "it's a bomb with more power than all gunpowder ever used, by orders of magnitude". No need for biblical references for that one.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
In many respects, the USA is past the point of no return with regards to gun control. I read that there are 300 million estimated guns in the USA
so even in the highly unlikely event of the 2nd being repealed, and say, 75% of all gun owners handing over their guns to be destroyed, and an end to gun production,
there would still be the problem of guns floating around.
I've long believed that if the moderates from both sides sat down in a room together, gun control would have been sorted a long time ago with a solution that both respects individual liberty and regulates who gets to have guns.
Sadly, the fanatics on both sides have poisoned the well for everybody, just like they do with nearly every issue in life.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But as somebody once said, our questions would make no sense to the Founders, just as their answers woud make no sense to us...
Exactly. Just imagine trying to explain a nuclear bomb to the Founding Fathers without using biblical references to describe its power. Or explaining to them that some of our major metro areas have as many people today as the entire US had in 1780.
Meh, "it's a bomb with more power than all gunpowder ever used, by orders of magnitude". No need for biblical references for that one.
Not enough. Explain the fallout, the radiation, lingering effects on the survivors, etc.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Manchu wrote: The staff has agreed to tentatively lift the ban on discussing US Politics. Posters may do so in this thread only.
Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.
